My Cataphract Weighs a Ton!

[Nathan Ross]

Somewhere in my reading over the last couple of months I found and noted the information that a fully armoured and mounted cataphract lancer could weigh up to a ton. Unfortunately, of course, I failed to note where I read this 'fact', and haven't been able to find it again since! :roll:

So how much would a cataphract actually weigh? I thought I'd try and find out, to see whether this extraordinary-sounding claim might be anything close to the truth.

Wikipedia gives the weight of a 'large riding horse' as up to 1,300lb, and a full set of cataphract armour (including armour for the horse, presumably) as 88lb. Added to the average weight of a smallish man (170lb), that gives 1559lb for the total weight of horse, armour and rider - this is around 0.69 tons.

So, it seems from this that a cataphract could weight over two thirds of a ton. But is that right? Have any cataphract reenactors weighed themselves recently?

- Nathan

[Ammianus]

You could ask Mark Caple who does a impression with Comitatus:
[attachment=2949]IMG00204-20110422-1234.jpg[/attachment]

I'll PM you his email address.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes, but be careful, he may try to run you down with it..

[jvrjenivs]

Well, I'm still working on my own version of the full horse-armour, which will be slightly different from the above posted one. The main body is already finished though and (in my opinion) a good representation of one of the Dura housings. Scales are of the same size and thickness as the originals, although modern brass. The garnent has 3400 scales in it and weights only 16kg.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Is it not supposed to close around the chest Jurjen?
Or am I thinking of just one version?

[jvrjenivs]

There were found two (almost) intact housings. One has a small part going around the neck, the other has a straight front, witch a slight cut for the horses neck. It seems the neck of the horse (in both versions) was covered with a separate piece (which I'm currently working on).

As for the chest, the first housing (as this one is based on) leaves it open, so I'm going to add another separate piece for the chest. This also supports for better movement possibilities of the horse in general. The second housing closes at the front, but that still wouldn't completely cover the whole chest, so the neck-piece has to come a bit down to close up the whole front area.
I opted for the housing with only a little taper on the front and a loose chest-part as it will give the horse much more moveability.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Thanks Jurjen, I haven't seen my copy for a while, as the last 2 years have been pretty hectic, working and trying to attend events the first weekend home every time has left me with little time for research of any kind. I appreciate your answer!

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

btw the head covering was causing the horse considerable discomfort, so it
is one part I would really spend a lot of time on to make sure it causes the horse no problems!

[jvrjenivs]

[jvrjenivs]

btw the head covering was causing the horse considerable discomfort, so it
is one part I would really spend a lot of time on to make sure it causes the horse no problems!

Yes, therefore I'm looking into all possibilities. Not only makes it discomfort tot the horse as to having less 'moveability' in first line. The horse also uses his neck to get balance when doing swift movements. That makes the head-piece of considerable importance. Also, closing up the front of the chest, together with one piece for the sides has little moveability for the front legs. I hope to propose a 'educated guess' reproduction of the other parts of the armour this summer, as no such piece has been directly identified, although we have some pieces (also from the same Tower at Dura Europos) which might have been parts of the neck-covering.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Cheers, been a while since I've seen the pictures. The other one is with the horse facing the other way iirc?

[daryush]

I'm going to be not very helpful at all and chime in here with a couple of nit-picks, hope y'all don't mind :mrgreen:

As for the chest, the first housing (as this one is based on) leaves it open, so I'm going to add another separate piece for the chest. This also supports for better movement possibilities of the horse in general. The second housing closes at the front, but that still wouldn't completely cover the whole chest, so the neck-piece has to come a bit down to close up the whole front area.

Is there any evidence to say that a separate peytral would have been used? Common-sense says so ... but on closer look, armour of this thickness is largely arrow-proofing, and would do little to protect your horse if the guy you were charging at decided to put a pike between you and him.

I've seen lots of Parthian, Sassanian, and Kushan iconography and all of them seem to show a "saddle-blanket" type which closes in the front. It's not until the arrival of the Turks do we start seeing peytrals and crinets mounted "upside down." In fact, the lamellar peytral shown at Taq-e-Bostan does appear to be quite thick.

I could have missed something in my survey, if so, please do point it out

This, of course, doesn't take into account the very early Achaemenian / Saka (I forget which, exactly) peytral, which was made of lots and lots and lots of narrow lamellae.

And I suppose what would really settle the discussion would be any evidence of buckles or ties on the front edge of that particular Dura barding

In regards to the original question - I dislike using the word "cataphract" because it is so vague, especially here where no sense of time or area is given. A suit of Mughal plated-mail is probably lighter than a Massagetae coat of plates or a Gokturk suit of metal lamellar. All three examples had armoured riders with lances and armoured horses.

It should also be noted that cataphracts were not "smallish" men - I can't remember where I read it but I did read that the riders would also be of an impressive size and build. Perhaps in the 80 - 90 kg region?

The possible crinets Jurjenus mentionned are what other interpret as leather lamellar half-chaps. David Nicolle mentions them as crinets in "Sassanian Armies" and I only found out about them being half-chaps afterwards, so I have always preferred to think of them as crinets :mrgreen: Although there is Parthian iconographic evidence for chaps and half-chaps in addition to / instead of banded leg armour.


PS: Both impressions are lovely! There is also Warren Lambley, although I don't want to re-post his photos on a public forum without his consent but he has posted pics on the forumbefore.

[Robert Vermaat]

PS: Both impressions are lovely! There is also Warren Lambley, although I don't want to re-post his photos on a public forum without his consent but he has posted pics on the forumbefore.

Warren gave me permission years ago so I see no problem reposting a image of his beautiful armour.
[attachment=2956]horse10.jpg[/attachment]

I've seen lots of Parthian, Sassanian, and Kushan iconography and all of them seem to show a "saddle-blanket" type which closes in the front.

Indeed, but did these leave the neck free? I doubt that a single piece could have covered the whole body and still leave the horse room for a comfortable movement of the head?

As to weight and sizes, I don't know why cataphract riders would have to be large? Really interested in that source, indeed. It would also depend on the horses used, smaller ones would be faster but would carry less weight, I think?

As to the name 'cataphract' in the original post, indeed that would depend on the period. But for the Roman type or armoured horse, I think the word is satisfactory enough.

[John Conyard]

Rather than two (449 and 450 - James S. (2004) Excavations at Dura-Europos 1928-1937 Final report VII The Arms and Armour and Other Military Equipment (London 2004))
three horse armours were found in Tower 19 at Dura. The backing of the third set (451) had disintegregated just leaving the scales in situ. Indeed part of a supposed crinet (425) exist as do many other iron scales possibly from trappers (474-482). Mark’s armour, several years old now, was based on this crinet, further evidence from 449 and the excellent iconography from the site. Trapper 449 which Jurjen has reconstructed was found with four accessessories including two possible pieces of neck defence and two extra bits of scale armour. These latter pieces could have been a chest defence, or almost anything else! But it does seem likely that many relatively large iron scales may have been confined to horse armour, such as the versions from Carnuntum. Mark’s armour was made to fit Picador and fits him perfectly.

I think David Nicolle put forward his theory on the leather thigh guards being crinets in “Jawshan, Curie and Coat-of-Plates: An Alternative Line of Development for Hardened Leather Armour” in the “Companion to Medieval Arms and Armour (Woodbright 2002)” which he edited. It is a very interesting article. The Dura thigh guards do not match the supposed bronze or iron crinets, but their construction is entirely different. However they do match other Eastern cuisses from various periods very well.

I am also not a great fan of the much over-used word “cataphract”. I word that I suspect meant something very different to a Roman in the west and east, and certainly to us today.

I think it only fair to point out that while we have moved away from such strung bow cases, there also is little evidence for such small “cavalry” shields. Jurjen could happily go in a different direction. I started using one really because I could, but now such small shields seem to be de rigueur for cavalry re-enactors. We recently even had a request from a museum to make them a “cavalry shield” for an exhibit. For a reference they even cited ourselves! We certainly do not wish to mislead new cavalry re-enactors into duplicating if not our mistakes, then certainly our in-house styles.

All of which takes us away from the main point that the major weight of any horseman is the horse, not the armour.

Right, back to my coffee.

[daryush]

I've seen lots of Parthian, Sassanian, and Kushan iconography and all of them seem to show a "saddle-blanket" type which closes in the front.

Indeed, but did these leave the neck free? I doubt that a single piece could have covered the whole body and still leave the horse room for a comfortable movement of the head?

As to weight and sizes, I don't know why cataphract riders would have to be large? Really interested in that source, indeed. It would also depend on the horses used, smaller ones would be faster but would carry less weight, I think?

Sorry, I perhaps should have been clearer. From what I can tell they are made up of a large "saddle-blanket," separate crinet, and separate chamfron.

I found the source! It is written in "Cataphracts and Clibinarii of the Ancient World" which I read here: http://www.allempires.com/article/index....ataphracts

Rather than two (449 and 450 - James S. (2004) Excavations at Dura-Europos 1928-1937 Final report VII The Arms and Armour and Other Military Equipment (London 2004))
three horse armours were found in Tower 19 at Dura. The backing of the third set (451) had disintegregated just leaving the scales in situ. Indeed part of a supposed crinet (425) exist as do many other iron scales possibly from trappers (474-482).

<snip>

I think David Nicolle put forward his theory on the leather thigh guards being crinets in “Jawshan, Curie and Coat-of-Plates: An Alternative Line of Development for Hardened Leather Armour” in the “Companion to Medieval Arms and Armour (Woodbright 2002)” which he edited.

Thanks for the refs. I'll take a closer look at the Dura book and see if I can find Nicolle's paper somewhere too.

Right, back to my coffee.

Enjoy! :-)